Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-1011 (2026)

Enforcement of commission orders; judicial review; procedure

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

44-1011. Enforcement of commission orders; judicial review; procedure. (a) The commission, attorney general or county or district attorney, at the request of the commission, may secure enforcement of any final order of the commission in accordance with the Kansas judicial review act. The evidence presented to the commission, together with its findings and the order issued thereon, shall be certified by the commission to the district court as its return. No order of the commission shall be superseded or stayed during the proceeding on review unless the district court shall so direct.

(b) Any action of the commission pursuant to the Kansas act against discrimination is subject to review in accordance with the Kansas judicial review act except: (1) As provided by K.S.A. 44-1044, and amendments thereto; (2) the attorney general or county or district attorney, in addition to those persons specified by K.S.A. 77-611, and amendments thereto, shall have standing to bring an action for review; and (3) on review, the court shall hear the action by trial de novo with or without a jury in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 60-238, and amendments thereto, and the court, in its discretion, may permit any party or the commission to submit additional evidence on any issue. The review shall be heard and determined by the court as expeditiously as possible. After hearing, the court may affirm the adjudication. If the adjudication by the commission is not affirmed, the court may set aside or modify it, in whole or in part, or may remand the proceedings to the commission for further disposition in accordance with the order of the court.

The commission's copy of the testimony shall be available at all reasonable times to all parties for examination without cost, and for the purpose of judicial review of the order. The review shall be heard on the record without requirement of printing.

The commission shall be deemed a party to the review of any order by the court.

History: L. 1961, ch. 248, § 8; L. 1963, ch. 279, § 6; L. 1965, ch. 323, § 7; L. 1967, ch. 285, § 3; L. 1970, ch. 192, § 6; L. 1979, ch. 161, § 3; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 64; L. 2010, ch. 17, § 79; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 36 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Nurge v. Univ. of Kansas Med. Ctr., 674 P.2d 459 (Kan. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nurge v. Univ. of Kansas Med. Ctr., 674 P.2d 459 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 44× “" The award was subsequently approved by the KCCR and UKMC took an appeal to the district court pursuant to K.S.A. 44-1011. Following a "trial de novo" the district court found no evidence of sex discrimination and set aside the order of the KCCR.”

Ben J. v. City of Salina, 208 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 22× “In finding that a review of the KCCR record could constitute a trial de novo under K.S.A. 44-1011, the Stephens court concluded that "when the legislature called for a trial de novo (`with or without a jury in accordance with the provisions of K.”

Woods v. Midwest Conveyor Co., 648 P.2d 234 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 6× “It has been suggested that the judicial review in the district court, provided by K.S.A. 44-1011, is sufficient to comply with the constitutional requirements.”

In Re Lakeview Gardens, Inc., 605 P.2d 576 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 6× “The opinion considers the relevancy of a special appeals statute, K.S.A. 44-1011, allowing appeal from orders of the KCCR.”

Stephens v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500, 546 P.2d 197 (Kan. 1975). · cites it 8× “The second broad ground alleged for reversal is that the trial court erroneously conducted a trial de novo, making its own findings of fact, drawing its own inferences from the record, and substituting its judgment for that of the administrative agency. The issues thus framed…”

Wagher v. Guy's Foods, Inc., 885 P.2d 1197 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 5× “Wagher argues that K.S.A. 44-1011(b) provides for a jury trial for KAAD complainants who demand a jury in accordance with K.”

Legg v. Topeka Halfway House, Inc., 646 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “Respondent timely filed notice of appeal with the district court, but addressed the notice to the KCCR staff attorney rather than mailing it to complainant’s last known address as provided in K.S.A. 44-1011. After a pretrial conference at which this defect was not mentioned,…”

Brinson v. Sch. Dist. 431, 576 P.2d 602 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 2× “The authority for judicial review of a KCCR order is set forth in K.S.A. 44-1011. This special appeal statute was construed by this court in Stephens as authorizing review by trial de novo.”

Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights v. Serv. Envelope Co., 660 P.2d 549 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 44-1011. During the three years that the matter was pending before the *22 KCCR, numerous changes took place at Service.”

Neunzig v. Seaman Unified Sch. Dist. No. 345, 722 P.2d 569 (Kan. 1986). · cites it 3× “345 appealed that decision to the district court pursuant to K.S.A. 44-1011, claiming the KCCR lacked jurisdiction to hear Neunzig’s complaint.”

Condemnation of Land for State High. Purposes v. Stranger Valley Land Co., 123 P.3d 731 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 3× “The employer filed a timely notice of appeal with the district court but improperly served the notice of appeal on the KCCR staff attorney who had *581 prosecuted the complaint rather than on the complainant at his last known address as required by K.S.A. 44-1011 (Ensley 1981).…”

Jones v. the Grain Club, 605 P.2d 142 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 3× “An appeal was then taken to the district court under K.S.A. 44-1011. Before the matter could be heard de novo the club filed a motion in the district court to set aside and modify the order of the KCCR.”

Show all 36 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 44-1011(b) — 9 cases

Ben J. v. City of Salina, 208 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2009). “In finding that a review of the KCCR record could constitute a trial de novo under K.S.A. 44-1011, the Stephens court concluded that "when the legislature called for a trial de novo (`with or without a jury in accordance with the provisions of K.”

Wagher v. Guy's Foods, Inc., 885 P.2d 1197 (Kan. 1994). “Wagher argues that K.S.A. 44-1011(b) provides for a jury trial for KAAD complainants who demand a jury in accordance with K.”

Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm'n, 864 P.2d 1148 (Kan. 1993).

Parker v. Kansas Neurological Inst., 778 P.2d 390 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).

Garvey Elevators, Inc. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm'n, 961 P.2d 696 (Kan. 1998).

— K.S.A. § 44-1011(b)(1) — 1 case

Weaver (D. Kan. 2026).

— K.S.A. § 44-1011(b)(3) — 3 cases

Wagher v. Guy's Foods, Inc., 885 P.2d 1197 (Kan. 1994). “Wagher argues that K.S.A. 44-1011(b) provides for a jury trial for KAAD complainants who demand a jury in accordance with K.”

Garvey Elevators, Inc. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm'n, 961 P.2d 696 (Kan. 1998).

Excel Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm'n, 864 P.2d 220 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.